Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Stun Gun Mystery

The New York Post reports on this amazing story.

The NYPD is trying to find out why a stun gun didn't stop a knife-wielding man before he was fatally shot by cops outside his Manhattan home. 

Investigators will look into how Emmanuel Paulino was able to laugh and pull out the electrified prongs and keep coming at cops with a knife. Officers finally fired nine bullets, killing Paulino -- who had called 911, saying, "I'm ready to kill some cops right now."
I've heard all the center-of-mass arguments, and I understand them. But when it's one guy with no gun against a bunch of cops with guns who eventually fire nine bullets into him, are you going to tell me they couldn't have stopped him by firing at his legs?

Please leave a comment.


  1. "are you going to tell me they couldn't have stopped him by firing at his legs?"

    I'm saying they couldn't have stopped him by firing at his legs.

  2. So after they sever the rather large blood vessels in his legs and he dies anyway, then what? (assuming they even hit his legs)

  3. He came at the cops with a knife. He deserves to die.

    Why is it you coddle criminals MikeB? Sticking up for your own kind no matter what?

  4. No one teaches peripheral limb shots for stopping dangerous people, and for a superb reason: it's a very, very bad idea.

  5. Then, how about aiming at the right shoulder? Wouldn't that do the trick and usually be less than fatal?
    I'll betcha one bullet to the shoulder stops even a guy who is impervious to the taser.

    And get a load of Mr. Anonymous. "He deserves to die."

  6. Then, how about aiming at the right shoulder? Wouldn't that do the trick and usually be less than fatal?

    Somebodies been watching too much TV again.

  7. You don't have the luxury of aiming for specific body parts. Center mass is the preferred target at least as much because it's the easiest to hit (being bigger, and given the fact that if you miss by a bit to either side, or above or below, you still have a good chance of hitting the guy somewhere).

    Besides, you're responsible for every bullet you send downrange--the higher the likelihood of a miss (with the bullet continuing to travel on), the higher the likelihood of shooting someone who doesn't entirely deserve it.

    Bottom line--if you charge a gun-armed person with a knife, count on it being the last thing you do.

  8. Mike -

    Try chugging a quadruple-espresso, running a mile, sprinting the final 300 yards, and at the end of it, doing something very shooting a basket or making a long putt. Oh, and if you screw it up, you or someone with you might end up hurt or dead.

    That almost begins to come close to the body's reaction in such a situation. Look up statistics about the average distance of a firearm shooting, and the average number of hits in such'll be amazed just how often even highly trained people miss at near-touching distances.

    Now quit watching movies about shooting and maybe go visit a shooting range to see just how complex shooting is in the perfect world of sitting still shooting at a non-moving paper target, much less with the body's reaction to an attack and an unpredictable, moving target.

  9. "...why not shoot at the shoulder?"

    Because you are still more likely to miss (and endanger others) and you could hit the clavical artery and still kill him!

    Look, if you're not justified in killing someone, you're not justified to shoot him. At all.
    That's what they mean by "Lethal force"!

  10. If you have to shoot something and your life depends on it, why make it more complicated than it has to be?

    The torso is a big, easy target. Shoot the torso.

  11. All right, all right, I got it. But still nine shots sounds extreme to me. There have been other stories about which you guys said the same thing where the cops fired even more than that.

    The center-of-mass thing has to be in the most extreme of cases. I can't believe they all require that.

  12. "I can't believe they all require that."

    If you suspect the attacker is wired with explosives many counter-terrorist protocols call for shooting them in the head.

    So you're right Mike.

  13. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    But still nine shots sounds extreme to me.

    The article doesn't say how many cops there were--4 or 5 could get 9 shots off so quickly there wouldn't have been time to note that the last several were unnecessary. Alternatively, some guys soak up a lot of lead, and keep on coming. Pistols are not particularly powerful weapons--instant stops are the exception, rather than the rule (and a guy hyped up enough to shrug off a TASER sounds like just the sort who might need a lot of puttin' down).

    The center-of-mass thing has to be in the most extreme of cases.

    Somebody charging you with a weapon is a "most extreme case."

  14. By the way, I love this line by the "community activist" (is that like a "community organizer"--maybe he should think about a presidential run someday) quoted in the article:

    The bottom line is that Emmanuel Paulino was a sick individual who needed help and was seeking help, and I guess the call he made seeking help only brought his death.

    Apparently, a 911 call saying, "I'm ready to kill some cops right now," is "seeking help."